ArticleBritish dental journal2022
Patient safety in dentistry - the bigger picture.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring human factors that affect patient safety in dentistry: a qualitative study of hospital-based practice.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Patient safety and ethical attitudes among dentistry and dental assisting students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Patient safety attitude scale in dentistry: development and validation study in Türkiye.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Perception of patient safety culture among undergraduate dental students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Patient safety education in Umm Al-Qura dental school: A comprehensive analysis of curriculum content and student confidence.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patient safety incidents (PSIs) have recently become a topic of discussion within dentistry. NHS England data has highlighted that wrong tooth extraction is the most common surgical Never Event (NE); however, this data reflects mainly a secondary care picture. Consideration needs to be given to reporting of PSIs occurring in primary care.Aims To establish the current attitudes of both primary and secondary care dentists within this field and to use this to promote a positive, supportive culture.Methods A national electronic survey was sent to dentists for data capture related to this topic, from April to September 2019 inclusively.Results There were 104 responses to the survey. Responses included that 39% of responders were general dental practitioners (GDPs), 90% were aware of NEs, 48% were not aware of how to report PSIs and 74% of dentists felt that fear of the General Dental Council/Care Quality Commission repercussions was a barrier to them reporting PSIs. Additionally, 86% of dentists felt that a trainee/GDP support network would be useful to share learning regarding PSIs.Conclusion The survey results highlighted that there is a lack of knowledge concerning PSI reporting, combined with a culture of fear of the repercussions of reporting. The survey data will aim to be used to implement a supportive network for dentists, develop a positive ethos surrounding PSIs and optimise patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35396430What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.